Colorado votes NO to gay marriage

[sealybobo]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/us/colorado-rejects-same-sex-civil-unions.html?_r=2&hp

Yet another state to reject gay marriage. And Colorado of all places.

This was a huge fuck up for Team Obama. Most Americans do not support gay marriage. I dont care about the issue, but I DO CARE about defeating Obama. And this topic may have pushed the snowball over the slope that will accumulate enough momentum to grow on itself and kick him out of Washington. Yay!

All they need is one state to prove discrimination. See, they can just get married in Boston and then Colorado has to recognize it.

If I move from Michigan to Colorado, do they recognize that I am married or do I have to get married all over again in Colorado? So a gay can get married in San Francisco and Colorado has to recognize that legal binding contract. If not, on what basis? Religious?

 

[JimBowie1958]

For now. Time is on our side.

Lol, in your dreams.

Time is on OUR side, because we generate the next generation; homophiles merely corrupt them and over time parents will learn how to inoculate their children from the pernicious evil that is hedonism.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I see so according to you allowing gays to marry the person they want to of which they can't do and you can means they want special rights.
So basically you want to discriminate against people because they are not like you so basically you're a racist

Homos aren't a race.

They may be a new sub species; but they are not a race.

Agreed, though this assinine lie is picking up momentum in the sodomite community.

But they are rather odd, just not a seperate race because they cant reproduce which is a requirement of being a race.

Just remember; women are from Venus, men are from Mars, and gays are from Uranus.

 

[Sunni Man]

All they need is one state to prove discrimination. See, they can just get married in Boston and then Colorado has to recognize it.

If I move from Michigan to Colorado, do they recognize that I am married or do I have to get married all over again in Colorado? So a gay can get married in San Francisco and Colorado has to recognize that legal binding contract. If not, on what basis? Religious?

A homo marriage license is not like a driver's license.

Drivers license is issued in all 50 states; and so every state recognizes each others license.

But only a few states give out homo marriage licenses; thus the non issuing states do not have to recognize them.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So you disagree with the supreme court when they said separate was not equal

I would absolutely LOVE the Supreme Court of the US to hear a case- Eventually they will.

Your statement does not address nor counter mine.

You claim civil unions mean we dont need gay marraige. However if you beleive that theyn you believe that separate is equal

Nice try.
To date, gays are NOT a demographic minority group.
Homosexuals belong to a behavior group.
Therefore your theory of using "separate but equal" does not apply.

 

[sealybobo]

All they need is one state to prove discrimination. See, they can just get married in Boston and then Colorado has to recognize it.

If I move from Michigan to Colorado, do they recognize that I am married or do I have to get married all over again in Colorado? So a gay can get married in San Francisco and Colorado has to recognize that legal binding contract. If not, on what basis? Religious?

A homo marriage license is not like a driver's license.

Drivers license is issued in all 50 states; and so every state recognizes each others license.

But only a few states give out homo marriage licenses; thus the non issuing states do not have to recognize them.

Sorry. If I go to a new state to live, I have to get a new drivers licence. A married gay couple can drive through your state and there is no reason to have you recognize that they are married if they are just driving through. But if they move there permenantly they have to get a new drivers licence. But a married couple doesn't have to get a new marriage certificate jsut because they move to Georgia. Georgia recognizes that if they were married in Michigan, they are married in Georgia too.

Or can I just move to Utah and tell my wife to go fuck herself?

I'm not asking any church to accept it, but the state has to. So does the IRS, insurance companies, mortgage lenders, courts, hospitals, employer, etc.

 

[Avatar4321]

They already can marry the person they choose. They are simply required to abide by the eligibility process the rest of us are.

They are allowed to marry anyone who:

1) Is the opposite gender
2) Is not currently married
3) Is not a blood relation
4) is above the age of consent.

Ah so they can marrry anyone they choose unless unless...

Just like every other person in the United States is.

They can marry anyone they choose. What they can't do is redefine the definition of marriage to describe what they do with someone they enter a relationship with.

Oh so they want to be allowed to marry but dont want to marry....
Yes thousands of years of wisdom and tradition such as women not being able to vote and blacks being slaves

Ill chalk this down to ignorance. But you do realize that thousands of years of wisdom and tradition didnt forbid women from voting or make blacks slaves right?

Women were voting in American since before the revolution. A few decades into the Republic they started voting for the wrong people so those in power tried to strip them of their right to vote. Which started the effort to restore women to the vote.

Africans were made slaves only several hundred years ago. When slavery started in America it wasnt limited to race. The Founders set up a system they expected would expell slavery at the soonest opportunity. Unfortunately, things didnt go as planned so it took longer.

Are you familiar with the history of slavery in America? One of the first slave holders (if not the first) in Virginian (and likely American) history was Anthony Johnson. His case against his neighbor established slavery as a legal practice in the United States. I recommend researching it. It's an ironic story.

North Corliina just made that illegal

Actually, they didn't. They said they wouldnt recognize it as marriage. But the relationship is still perfectly legal. The state cant prevent two individuals from making agreements with one another. They can only choose not to recognize those agreements.

If to people of the same gender decided to make promises with one another and call it marriage. The state cannot stop them. They are just not recognized to be married in the eyes of the law.

Not sure why it's so difficult to understand.

No the issue is whether the government recognizes those unions. The only reason it recognizes marriage as it is because of important policy interests. Namely the perpetuation of the species. Same sex relationships cannot provide the same policy interest.

I see so according to you the government should ban marriage unless you have kids

Nope. Not what I said at all. But then if you werent trying to twist my words, you might learn what I mean.

The left has worked hard at obscurring the real issue in this debate and tying an emotional component to it. But the truth will set you free.

Yes you claiming that we can only marry if we have kids is the left obscurring

As I never claimed that, how can you statement become true?

I know you can't deal with the argument and hence you have to resort to such tactics, but it really doesnt help your cause.

 

[Sunni Man]

I'm not asking any church to accept it, but the state has to.

Nope.

A non homo marriage state; does not have to accept a homo marriage license from another state.

 

[EmoBasher]

All they need is one state to prove discrimination. See, they can just get married in Boston and then Colorado has to recognize it.

If I move from Michigan to Colorado, do they recognize that I am married or do I have to get married all over again in Colorado? So a gay can get married in San Francisco and Colorado has to recognize that legal binding contract. If not, on what basis? Religious?

A homo marriage license is not like a driver's license.

Drivers license is issued in all 50 states; and so every state recognizes each others license.

But only a few states give out homo marriage licenses; thus the non issuing states do not have to recognize them.

Some bars in West Texas wouldn't serve me because I had a New Jersey license, so that thing about drivers' licenses isn't correct in practice. But I digress.

 

[Sunni Man]

Some bars in West Texas wouldn't serve me because I had a New Jersey license, so that thing about drivers' licenses isn't correct in practice. But I digress.

True, ain't to partial to carpetbag Yankees.

 

[EmoBasher]

Some bars in West Texas wouldn't serve me because I had a New Jersey license, so that thing about drivers' licenses isn't correct in practice. But I digress.

True, ain't to partial to carpetbag Yankees.

Yeah, some people can't get over the Civil War I take it. Still, I love everyone else over there. And the place with 'em.

 

[Flopper]

I agree 100%. The word "marriage" has been inbred into us for centuries to mean a union between a man and woman. Nothing else. Husband is male--Wife is female. For the gay community to insist on using the word "marriage" for a union between same sex couples only means they have a couple of hundred year battle on their hands over this issue. They weren't happy with civil unions--it had to be marriage. Why they thought they could rewrite 100's of years of history and culture without a major battle is beyond me.

32 states now have rejected gay marriage.

One could say much the same thing about interracial marriage and even slavery. Because something has been accepted by society may make it part of our laws, but it doesn't make it right.

Once could say that, but it would not be a correct analogy. This is about changing the definition of marriage, not about civil rights.

I'm not talking about legal rights, I talking about individual freedom, the freedom to marry who you choose, regardless of sex or race.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Its the "in your face" activism that turns people off, from any group. I'm all for things like ensuring minorities aren't discriminated against, but in your face tactics from the NAACP turn me off from it. Same with immigration rights, etc, etc.

As opposed to "passive activism" in which everyone just sits arounds and wishes for things to change? Give me a break.

Nothing changes in this country unless people get up, get out and march. You just don't like it when things change because change is scary to you.

March? Please. That just pisses off people even more.
Imagine trying to get to work or the hospital with your sick child and these cock suckers are blocking the road on account of some very unpopular cause? Yeah, that'll get us to support them.
As with OWS, people like that are not gaining any traction for their cause nor are they acquiring any friends.
So go ahead and march. Be careful you don't get run over.
Protest is fine. Just don't make your problem my problem.
In other words, the right to protest ends where everyone else's rights begin

Oh please, how many times a year does that happen to you? Once?

The right to assemble is guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Constitution and it includes the unpopular causes too.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Colorado already passed a referendum in 2006 granting same sex couples ALL of the benefits of marriage. So called "same sex marriage acts" are a direct assault on religious institutions. It is a bogus back door attack on freedom of religion.

No dear, this has nothing to do with religion.

This has to do with government and benefits.

You're still free to practice your religion.

No, dear, this has everything to do with religion. Matrimony "marriage" is a covenant made between a man and a woman. A covenant instituted by God.

As I stated, the "government benefits" in the state of Colorado had already been granted by referendum in 2006. Any homosexual couple can go out and have a civil ceremony and have these "benefits". But the act of "marriage" is an act that has historically been granted between a "man and a woman". It is an institution that is historically religious.

That is why even the president (despite all of his evolving) is in agreement with Mitt Romney that this is a states right issue.

Religious Freedom is infringed upon when its rights and practices are forced upon conscientious objectors- as it regularly is. link

131 gay-friendly churches in Colorado willing to perform a same-sex marriage.


http://www.gaychurch.org/Find_a_Church/united_states/us_colorado.htm

I've been watching gay couples get married in religious ceremonies for decades.

Today's issue regarding same-sex marriage has nothing to do with religion.

This is about getting the government to recognize and grant federal and state benefits to same-sex married couples.

 

[Flopper]

No, dear, this has everything to do with religion. Matrimony "marriage" is a covenant made between a man and a woman. A covenant instituted by God.

There's church doctrine and there' civil law. The gay marriage debate is about changing civil law, not church doctrine. Civil law has no place in church doctrine and church doctrine has no place in civil law.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm not asking any church to accept it, but the state has to.

Nope.

A non homo marriage state; does not have to accept a homo marriage license from another state.

At least as long as DOMA stays in place and Obama is trying to repeal it as we speak.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, dear, this has everything to do with religion. Matrimony "marriage" is a covenant made between a man and a woman. A covenant instituted by God.

There's church doctrine and there' civil law. The gay marriage debate is about changing civil law, not church doctrine. Civil law has no place in church doctrine and church doctrine has no place in civil law.

In the abstract academic view, yes, you are right.

Practically, the triumph of homophiles to the extent that we all have to subsidize gay marriages as normal and are subject to hate crime laws should we oppose, requires all religions in our nation to agree to and accomodate this new view of homosexuality as a norm.

Those churches and social groups who resist will be subject to the same type of social censorship and ostrocism that racists receive today.

This social conflict will see either the secular Civil Rights Establishment triumph or the Biblical Christian churches triumph by defeating the normalization of homosexuality.

I am confident that the Biblical churches will come out on top in the long run as it always has when threatened by Jacobinish radicalism.

 

[JimBowie1958]

131 gay-friendly churches in Colorado willing to perform a same-sex marriage.


http://www.gaychurch.org/Find_a_Church/united_states/us_colorado.htm

I've been watching gay couples get married in religious ceremonies for decades.

Today's issue regarding same-sex marriage has nothing to do with religion.

This is about getting the government to recognize and grant federal and state benefits to same-sex married couples.

A 'church' that ignores plain Biblical teaching to affirm homosexuality as a laudable and normal lifestyle is not Christian, and not long for this world in historical terms.

These groups are little more than social clubs where they come together periodically and practice being nice to each other. There is no transcendant Truth to them and no concept of the eternal Truth or Love of the life Jesus Christ led.

They are heretical poseurs who want social approval more than the Love of God.

And He will remove them from this world due to their inability to grow in membership over time.

 

[clevergirl]

No, dear, this has everything to do with religion. Matrimony "marriage" is a covenant made between a man and a woman. A covenant instituted by God.

There's church doctrine and there' civil law. The gay marriage debate is about changing civil law, not church doctrine. Civil law has no place in church doctrine and church doctrine has no place in civil law.

If that were only so.

Here's the rub- as I stated earlier and as is the fact, in a number of states prior to same sex marriage laws; having the benefits of marriage was not enough. Homosexuals want to redefine the idea of marriage as traditionally and spiritually held by religious entities. They wish to force some sort of normalcy with regards to their lifestyle. It is not normal. It will always be a deviance from normal.

What will and has happened, is that those who have religious objections will be civilly attacked.

 

[NLT]